Painting interesting things has an inherent problem.  Those interesting things are already, well, interesting.  A tattooed woman is fascinating by herself and maybe a photo of her would be interesting as a beautiful record.  But I feel a painting needs to be more.

Picasso is worth looking at, again and again, though the world seems divided on that thought.   Oh, his brush work is simplistic compared to Rembrandt.  His use of color can't compare with the mastery of a Cezanne still life, a  Klimt or Matisse. Though precocious early with art skills he can't compare with Bouguereau for beautiful rendering.  And as for gritty anguish, Scheille or Van Gogh give him a serious run for his money.

Labels are clever but, at least in the arts, they do us a disservice.  All too often we stop really looking once we have labelled, catalogued and shelved an...